How Google Screws With America

 

How Google Runs The “Deep State” Government That Is Screwing With Trump and The Entire U.S. Government

 

By Andres Fauceyt

Eric Schmidt was the head of the Deep State Government when it was formerly called New America Foundation. What a warm and cozy name for an organization as nasty as Satan’s anus. New America’s sister organization is a “charity organization” called In-Q-Tel. In-Q-Tel funded Eric Schmidt’s Google and claims to be a “non-profit charity which provides technology to the CIA...”. Google is the single largest financier of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Google is the single largest beneficiary of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In-Q-Tel was the owner of the airplanes that were registered on FAA and DEA arrest records as “Cocaine 1” and “Cocaine 2”. They had five tons of cocaine on them at the point that the DEA swooped in on the “charity” In-Q-Tel airplanes. In-Q-Tel staffs Elon Musk’s SpaceX spy satellite company. The head of Silk Road, the largest online illegal drug operation worked for Elon Musk at SpaceX. Most of Obama’s and Clinton’s key staff came from Google. Google makes billions of dollars from various government spy contracts. Pretty much everybody at Google hates Donald Trump and all Republicans. All of Google’s profits rely on kick-back deals with crony Democrats.

Those are facts. Check these facts out for yourself on any non-Google search engine. They are not arguable and they are proven by SEC and FTC filings, IRS filings, arrest records and other indisputable public documents.

Eric Schmidt had New America Foundation, Google and In-Q-Tel suddenly try to delete all connections to him. Even they could not erase it all. When you “follow-the-money”, the dirty paths of corruption and technology mobster-ism are clear.

Because Larry Page, Eric Schmidt and Elon Musk believed that the IRS, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the CIA and the Federal Reserve Bank were personally running cover for them, they decided to push the envelope and see how much they could get away with. They were certain that Google’s and In-Q-Tel’s technology could rig the 2016 election for Hillary, just like they did for Obama’s election, they did not foresee that the GOP had been covertly circumventing their coup attempt for years.

Now that Trump is in office, the bewildered Obama Coup organizers are scattered and the most of them do not know what to do except try to keep their little coup going. Hacking Donald Trump seemed like an easy and reasonable task to the Google-ites who had such an “above-the-law” world of anything-goes for so long. Now, not so much.

The holy trinity of Sessions/Gowdy/Chaffetz are delighting the public as they rail into the corrupt big wigs of Washington DC. Now it is time, though, for Congress to get serious and forcefully rail into Google, New America Foundation and In-Q-Tel and terminate them once and for all. They are not in service to America. They are criminal operations out to line their own pockets at the expense of the public and the Constitution.

 

Franklin Foer's 'World Without Mind' argues that Silicon Valley will lead us to our doom

 

Franklin Foer's 'World Without Mind' argues that Silicon ...

Sep 12, 2017 · To many Americans, large technology firms embody much of what's good about the modern world. Google holds the key to new depths of knowledge. Amazon is the ...

latimes.com/books/la-ca-jc-world-without-mind-2017091...

World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech ...

Franklin Foer's "World Without Mind" is an excellent book. It identifies important problems, ties the problems to their historical precedents, and suggests some ...

https://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Mind-Existential-Threat/dp/...

 

Twitter: @ZeitchikLAT

ALSO

Driver in Tesla crash relied excessively on Autopilot, but Tesla shares some blame, federal panel finds

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/03/silicon-valley-politics-lobbying-washington

 

Forget Wall Street – Silicon Valley is the new political power in Washington

It used to be banks, but now it is tech giants that dominate the US lobbying industry. Can money buy them what they want: less competition, less tax ... and more data?

by Olivia Solon in San Francisco and Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington

  •  

The scholar Barry Lynn worked at the New America Foundation, a Washington thinktank, for 15 years studying the growing power of technology companies like Google and Facebook. For 14 of them, everything was, he says, “great”.

This week, he was fired. Why? He believes it’s because Google, one of the thinktank’s biggest funders, was unhappy with the direction of his research, which was increasingly calling for tech giants including Google, Facebook and Amazon to be regulated as monopolies.

Leaked emails suggest the foundation was concerned that Lynn’s criticism could jeopardise future funding. In one of them, the organisation’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, wrote: “We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points … just think about how you are imperiling funding for others.”

Slaughter denies that Lynn was fired for his criticism of Google. It’s a difficult story to swallow, given that Google’s parent company, Alphabet, along with its executive chairman Eric Schmidt, have donated $21m to New America since 1999. Schmidt even chaired the thinktank for years and its main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab”.

Scholar says Google criticism cost him job: 'People are waking up to its power'

Read more

Funding thinktanks is just one of the ways that America’s most powerful industries exert their influence over policymakers. Much of the work takes place a quarter of a mile from the White House, in a lesser-known political power base: Washington’s K Street corridor, the epicenter of the lobbying industry.

In addition to thinktanks, K Street is packed with slick corporate representatives, hired guns, and advocacy groups. The lobbyists spend their days swarming over members of Congress to ensure their private interests are reflected in legislation and regulation.

While the big banks and pharma giants have flexed their economic muscle in the country’s capital for decades, there’s one relative newcomer that has leapfrogged them all: Silicon Valley. Over the last 10 years, America’s five largest tech firms have flooded Washington with lobbying money to the point where they now outspend Wall Street two to one.

Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple and Amazon spent $49m on Washington lobbying last year, and there is a well-oiled revolving door of Silicon Valley executives to and from senior government positions.

Tech companies weren’t always so cozy with Capitol Hill. During its 1990s heyday, Microsoft accumulated enormous wealth and market share. Despite being one of the world’s largest companies, the PC software pioneer mostly kept away from Washington, spending just $2m on lobbying in 1997.

However, the company’s size and anticompetitive business practices attracted the scrutiny of regulators in Clinton’s administration, whipped up by the lobbying of disgruntled competitors including Sun Microsystems, IBM and a company called Novell. The following year, the Department of Justice sued Microsoft, accusing it of using a Windows operating system monopoly to push its Internet Explorer browser to the disadvantage of rivals.

After years of legal wrangling, Microsoft was forced to make it easier for competitors to integrate their software with windows. The lengthy lawsuit left Microsoft with deep battle scars, and a more cautious, less aggressive approach to business. Under these conditions, rivals like Apple and Google were able to thrive.

The landmark action taught Silicon Valley’s tech titans a painful lesson: play the political game or Washington will make your life difficult.

That made a particularly profound impact on Eric Schmidt, who as CEO of Novell and former CEO of Sun Microsystems had a front-row seat to Microsoft’s public neutering. He clung on to the cautionary tale when he was hired as CEO of Google in 2001. Under his leadership, Google vastly increased its investment in lobbying to make friends and influence policymakers in Capitol Hill.

 

The company spent just $80,000 on lobbying in 2003. Today, its parent company, Alphabet, spends more on lobbying than any other corporation – $9.5m in the first half of 2017 alone and $15.4m the previous year. In 2013, the company signed a lease on a 55,000-square-foot office, roughly the same size as the White House, less than a mile away from the Capitol Building.

And it’s not just Google. Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft – which was hamstrung by its lacklustre early efforts to court policymakers – have been pouring money into Washington.

They are overwhelming Washington with money and lobbyists on both sides of the aisle,” said Robert McChesney, communications professor at the University of Illinois. “The Silicon Valley billionaires and CEOs are libertarian, low-tax deregulation buddies of the Koch brothers when it comes to talking to Republicans, and dope-smoking, gay rights activist hipsters when they mix with the Democrats.”

The tech giants aren’t spending this money just to get invited to the best parties in Washington – they’re doing this to protect their oligopolies. Their main areas of concern include the threat of looming action over anti-competitive practices, anything that might lead to higher taxation, net neutrality and privacy.

Such concerns have led Schmidt, who was heavily involved in the Obama campaign, to bend the knee to Donald Trump, despite saying in January that the president would do “evil things”. By June, he had changed his tune, crediting Trump’s administration with fostering a “huge explosion of new opportunities”.

Politics is just a transaction to these people,” said Jonathan Taplin, author of the recently published Move Fast Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy.

Soft power

Beyond the direct lobbying spend, which is publicly reported, Silicon Valley exerts influence on policymakers and citizens through opaque “soft power” techniques. These include funding thinktanks, research bodies and trade associations who lobby the government or influence civil society.

The Guardian view on Google: overweening power | Editorial

Read more

It’s such a murky world,” said one Washington insider, who has worked for several Silicon Valley companies, including Microsoft and Facebook. “All of these thinktanks push out white papers about how regulations would kill the online marketplace.”

Other ways to curry favor and influence include multi-million dollar events such as the secretive three-day conference Google held in the south-west of Sicily in early August, where business leaders were flown in by private helicopter (or shuttled from their superyachts) to rub shoulders with Emma Watson, Sean Penn, Prince Harry and Sir Elton John. The event is designed to bring great minds together to discuss major global problems, policy and the future of the internet – in between wine tastings and spa treatments.

There’s also a revolving door of Silicon Valley executives to and from senior government positions. Google alone employs 183 people who previously worked in the federal government under Barack Obama, while 58 Googlers have taken jobs in Washington, according to the Campaign for Accountability,

Warm and fuzzy brands

Somehow, despite their enormous power and influence, these companies have carefully crafted brands which centre on their warmth and cosiness – with mottos like “don’t be evil” (Google) and “we’re bringing the world closer together” (Facebook).

 

There is a public relations effort to make people think of technology very differently than they do Wall Street,” said Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project. “That’s how they maintain the illusion that they are cutting-edge nerds who are toiling for the good of humanity.”

The reality is these companies are run by some of the most hard-nosed business people in America.

Ask the people at Snapchat about the Kumbaya stuff at Facebook,” said Taplin, referring to the relentless cloning and copycatting of the smaller competitor’s features to the point where it is now financially struggling. “When they want to kill somebody, they kill them.”

The companies might have socially liberal views on gay rights, diversity and immigration, but many of their leaders and investors are libertarians and highly-skeptical of the influence of the state and government, said Taplin. “Their theory is that democracy is an impedance to capitalism so they need as little regulation as possible,” he said.

Silicon Valley’s roots

During the 1990s, In the early days of the dotcom era, internet companies flourished in Silicon Valley by skirting the law, moving fast and breaking things. Such techno-libertarianism was founded on the belief that borderless cyberspace was separate from the physical realm and therefore not subject to the same rules. This sentiment was encapsulated by the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s 1996 “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”, which was scathing about any kind of government intervention:

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather,” wrote EFF founding member John Perry Barlow.

The technology companies’ growth was aided by Bill Clinton’s free-market ideology, which created a digital free-trade zone by loosening tax laws for internet companies.

With a hands-off government, a new form of digital capitalism was born, enabling the rise of “winner takes all” businesses, which dominate entire continents within the digital economy: Google in search, Facebook in social networking, Amazon in online retail. As they made more money, they could invest in more proprietary infrastructure such as data centers, collect more customer data, hone their algorithms and buy up or clone competitors. This in turn gave them more scale and competitive advantage to the point where nobody else could keep up.

The tech companies reject the idea that they are monopolies on the basis that customers are free to come and go as they please.

Competition is just a click away,” said Michael Beckerman of the Internet Association, which represents Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter. “If you don’t like a particular service, switching is as easy as going to another website or app.”

Beckerman cited a Guardian article from 2007 titled “Will MySpace ever lose its monopoly?” as an example of how quickly the mighty can fall. However, MySpace had about 100m users at its peak. Facebook is 20 times the size.

That’s pure, unmitigated bullshit,” said McChesney. “I don’t think any credible economist who isn’t an Ayn Rand lunatic would accept that these are not monopolies.”

In recognition of the tech companies’ market-skewing capabilities, European regulators – historically less likely to be swayed by corporate lobbyists – have been clamping down on them through a series of legal actions, including investigating the tax arrangements of Apple and Amazon, leaving Apple with a €13bn ($14.5bn) tax bill, and fining Facebook for breaking data protection rules in the way it handled customer data following its acquisition of WhatsApp.

In a landmark antitrust case that culminated in June, Google was slapped with a record $2.7bn fine from Europe for illegally favoring its own services in its search results.

In the US, an FTC investigation reached the same conclusions as Europe had, writing in a 160-page report that Google’s conduct resulted in “real harm to consumers and innovation in the online search and advertising markets”. Investigators urged politicians to launch an antitrust lawsuit, but politicians overrode their recommendations, allowing Google to make some voluntary updates to its search results while avoiding serious sanctions. How? It’s not clear, but it’s hard to ignore that the company had spent $25m in lobbying Washington.

Regulation v innovation

Plenty of people disagree with Taplin, viewing Europe’s clampdown on Silicon Valley as an example of anti-American bias and overbearing bureaucracy that has stifled Europe’s ability to innovate and produce its own tech titans.

Beckerman, for example, credits the astronomical success of Silicon Valley’s firms as being down to America’s light-touch regulation.

There’s a reason that nearly all the successful internet companies we see today were founded in and grew in the US.”

The narrative is so ingrained that even Bill Gates said of PCs in 1998: “The amazing thing is that all this happened without any government involvement.”

 

However, Silicon Valley’s tech leaders have a short memory: their companies were built on a foundation of government intervention and public monies. Google and the rest would never have happened without the intervention of the state.

From the 1960s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (Arpa, now the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or Darpa) funnelled funds into long-term research and development of breakthrough technologies relied on by the tech giants. This included funding the Stanford Research Institute as a centre of innovation and economic development in the region, credited with inventions including the first all-magnetic digital computer, the mouse and an early version of the internet.

Each of the core technologies in the iPhone – including GPS, cellular communications, the internet, microchips, Siri and touchscreens – came from research efforts and funding support by the US government and military. The development of Google’s search engine algorithm was supported by the National Science Foundation.

The myth of the internet is always that it was invented by plucky entrepreneurs, but for decades it was entirely the creation of the federal government,” said McChesney.

The government also played a key role in breaking up monopolies in the tech industry with three seminal antitrust cases.

When IBM was dominating mainframe computing in the 1970s, for example, the government sued to try to separate the hardware and software parts of its business. IBM eventually agreed to allow other companies to create software that ran on IBM computers. This gave way to Microsoft, which eventually faced its own antitrust case, which created room for Google, which brings us back to Eric Schmidt.

He knows how to play the game backwards. He knows that the one thing that can stop the music is a big antitrust case,” said a lobbyist for a small tech company, who did not want to be named.

Tipping point

Although attempts by Washington to rein in the current generation of tech giants have been mostly toothless, that may soon change. Democrats have made antitrust a core part of their agenda over the next four years. In a speech in May, Senator Elizabeth Warren said: “It is time to do what Teddy Roosevelt did: pick up the antitrust stick again.”

The words echoed a speech Warren had delivered the previous June at an event organized by New America’s Barry Lynn, in which Google, Amazon and Facebook were described as platforms that could become tools to “snuff out competition”.

Silicon Valley siphons our data like oil. But the deepest drilling has just begun

Read more

Even Republicans have mooted the idea of regulating Facebook and Google like utilities, given that they have become necessities for daily life.

However, as Washington’s appetite for action against Silicon Valley grows, some question what such action could achieve. After all, the huge fine in Europe hasn’t changed Google’s dominant position.

Until you have a somewhat unilateral approach to regulating the internet, this is window dressing,” said the Washington insider. “Does it slow down Google? Yeah. Does it give lawyers lots of money? Yeah. But it doesn’t change the marketplace.”

Nevertheless, the tide is also turning in the court of public opinion, with a heightened public awareness of problems like the spread of fake news, the exploitation of personal data, and the link between automation, job losses and tax avoidance.

The immense amount of economic and political power these companies have will be increasingly difficult to sell at a time of economic stagnation and increased inequality,” said McChesney, who said that the current state of the economy was intrinsically linked to these businesses. “As we see AI and robots replace jobs, enthusiasm for the new world will lessen.”

People with pitchforks will eventually come after them,” added Hauser. “Even if they are using their smartphone to find out where the protest is.”

 


 

HOW TO GET THE FBI, CONGRESS & 250 MILLION VOTERS TO HELP YOU EXTERMINATE CORRUPT TECH OLIGARCHS


 

By Martin Lens

Want to wipe Google, Gawker, The President of Brazil, Enron, Solyndra or other characters, that have abused the public, off the map using 100% legal tactics?

You can get most of the U.S. Congress, elite federal agents, and all of your neighbours to help you do it. Some of them will even pay YOU to do these kinds of good deeds.

Here's how:

 

 CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERALS CAUGHT WORKING TOGETHER IN CRONY CRIME SCAM FINANCED BY GOOGLE OWNERS

 

California's Kamala Harris accused of "sleeping her way to the top" calls herself "honorary sex worker" at prostitutes meeting.

- Both AG's found to have halted organized crime investigations into their own campaign financiers.

- Both traded cash for crony deals to "fix" faked up climate change data by giving "...'climate repair' contracts, grants and govt. loans" to their friends.

- Existing documents uncovered showing that both had the crimes reported to them over last decade and they each ordered the data covered up.

- Both used Gawker Media, CNN, Think Progress, Media Matters and Gizmodo to run hit-jobs on opposition and competitors.

 

Motion to Renew and Reargue with New York Supreme Court Over Revelation of AG Efforts to Hide Schneiderman Use of Private E-mail

New York, NY – Late last week, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), acting on newly revealed information about yet another private email account of a public official, filed a motion to renew and reargue before the New York Supreme Court in one of E&E Legal's public records suits against the Office of the Attorney General (NY OAG) Eric Schneiderman.  This motion was prompted by E&E Legal obtaining an unsealed copy of a recent Supreme Court order in which the court acknowledged having reviewed at least one official Schneiderman email using a private account.

This latest private email account E&E Legal has found in use by the "climate-RICO" AGs is under Schneiderman's sole custody, is in violation of Schneiderman's own rules and raises serious questions about his Office's highly misleading arguments before the same court aimed at avoiding a search of this account.  

In previous court filings and arguments, the NY OAG's office went out of its way to give the impression that Schneiderman was not using private e-mails, clearly to avoid a court-ordered search of these records.  Subsequent documents have come to light, however, that clearly show Schneiderman used a "prohibited" private e-mail address. E&E Legal's filing reminded the court of these previous misleading statements and the court's reliance on them, asking to renew and reargue the case.

"No attorney wants to go back and plow old ground, and motions to renew and reargue are fairly unusual," said attorney Matt Hardin, who is representing E&E Legal in the case.  "Unfortunately, as in previous dealings we've had with the NY OAG, they've been less than forthcoming regarding their use of private e-mail accounts and thus have shown little regard for the very laws they're sworn to protect and uphold."


E&E Legal also asked the court to clarify its recent ruling to confirm the public has a right to know which outside email provider Schneiderman is using for select official correspondence,as there is no privacy interest in hiding whether it is Hotmail or Yahoo, for example, but noting that different providers offer differing levels of security for correspondence NYOAG itself insists are highly confidential "law enforcement" records.

In its earlier filings, E&E Legal had argued that Schniederman was using a private account to avoid scrutiny through New York Freedom of Information Law requests.  In response, the NY OAG submitted an affidavit from an OAG representative Michael Jerry, who stated that NY OAG employees were prohibited from using private e-mails, and argued E&E Legal had failed to show the AG used such an account. The Court based its December 21, 2016 Interim Ruling, in which the latest ruling was grounded, in large part on the Jerry Affidavit in its decision not to require the NY OAG to search such records.

"In its Interim Ruling the Court sided with the NY OAG saying it didn't order the search of private e-mail records because there wasn't evidence they existed," added Hardin.  "With documents clearly showing private e-mail use by the New York Attorney General, we are confident the Court will ultimately call for the search and disclosures of these records we originally sought."

E&E Legal seeks records related to Schneiderman's campaign to use RICO statutes and other legal instruments to pursue and silence those who disagree with the 'climate' political agenda, an issue also playing out in federal court in New York this week.  Records obtained from other AG offices by E&E Legal revealed this campaign was promoted and indeed originated by various financial interests including the Rockefeller Family Fund and Tom Steyer.

Elon Musk Attacks Trump Over “Climate Change”,Trump Should Respond (Tesla Subsidies, H-1B, Illegal Labor)


So, the welfare queen Elon Musk has quit two advisory councils serving President Trump.  This is quite rich for Musk, whose sales of Tesla cars tank once subsidies are withdrawn.

Elon Musk is breaking his ties with the White House now that President Donald Trump has said he will pull the US out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.

The Tesla and SpaceX CEO said on Wednesday that he would have “no choice” but to leave the two advisory councils he sits on if the US withdrew from the landmark climate deal — a commitment he reiterated on Thursday after Trump made the announcement.

“Am departing presidential councils,” Musk tweeted. “Climate change is real.

[Elon Musk Bails On Trump’s Advisory Councils After US Withdraws From Paris Climate Deal, by Danielle Muoio, Business Insider, June 1, 2017]

Tesla is the most heavily subsidized automobile on the market— it has no market without tax subsidies.

According to the latest data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), sales of Electrically Chargeable Vehicles (which include plug-in hybrids) in Q1 of 2017 were brisk across much of Europe: they rose by 80% Y/Y in eco-friendly Sweden, 78% in Germany, just over 40% in Belgium and grew by roughly 30% across the European Union… but not in Denmark: here sales cratered by over 60% for one simple reason: the government phased out taxpayer subsidies.

As Bloomberg writes, and as Elon Musk knows all too well, the results confirm that “clean-energy vehicles aren’t attractive enough to compete without some form of taxpayer-backed subsidy.”

[It’s Confirmed: Without Government Subsidies, Tesla Sales Implode, by Tyler Durden, Technocracy News, June 12, 2017]

And:

From hero to zero, in just one month.

Mr. JD Clayton, Property President of Studio City, and Miss Isabel Fan, Regional Director of Tesla Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, hosted the ribbon cutting ceremony.

Hong Kong has long been a hotbed for electric car sale, driven mostly by incentives, but what happens when those incentives vanish – almost doubling the cost of a new EV in some cases overnight? EV sales disappear….completely.

In March 2017, electric car sales in Hong Kong stood at 2,964 units. Come April, sales dropped to zero units. This was exactly as we had predicted when news first surfaced of the incentives being slashed.

[With Incentives Removed, Electric Car Sales, Including Teslas, Come To Complete Halt In Hong Kong, by Eric Loveday, Inside EVs, June 17, 2017]

Worse yet, Tesla is an H-1B dependant company, driving down American wages by importing foreign nationals to perform high skilled work.

And Tesla has yet to be held accountable by the Department of Justice for illegally importing Eastern European low wage laborers to build their Fremont, CA, Tesla plant.

The piece details how companies use the various visa-laundering companies that admit sketchy workers and allow business to evade US laws regarding immigration, wages and work conditions. [The Hidden Workforce Expanding Tesla’s Factory, By Louis Hansen, San Jose Mercury News, May 15, 2015] The local company Tesla was the case under scrutiny.

The face of the story is Gregor Lesnik, a Slovenian electrician hired to work at Tesla’s Fremont plant. He worked 10-hour days, six days a week installing pipes in a Tesla paint shop until he fell through the roof. He sustained serious injuries, for which none of the companies which aided his hiring wanted to be financially responsible: being a subcontractor is a common and convenient excuse. Lesnik is currently engaged in a lawsuit that has shined a light on the corrupt cheap labor system.

[Industry Still Imports Cheap Foreign Labor in Violation of US Law, by Brenda Walker, VDare, May 17, 2016]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has told Americans that those who violate immigration laws will be prosecuted, but the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Brian Stretch, a Deep State Obama operative, has not yet announced prosecution of Tesla and Tesla’s co-conspirators, Eisenmann USA and ISM Vuzem, Inc.

Give Brian Stretch a call here and ask him why:

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Phone: (415) 436-7200

Time for President Trump to act against Tesla by ending its tax breaks and shutting off the supply of H-1B and illegal alien labor.

 

BREAKING : Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris Entangled in Shady Scheme

Well well well… it looks like Mad Max may have been selling her endorsement in a shady pay for play scheme.

Guess who was a taker?

None other than Dem “rising star” Kamala Harris.

From ConservativeTribune

“A fool and his money are soon elected.” That humorous quote comes from Will Rogers, but his century-old wisdom is still very applicable today — especially when it comes to corrupt lawmakers like Maxine Waters.

The California Democrat, a veteran congresswoman first elected to the House in 1990, has been exposed as part of a “pay-to-play” scheme that funnels money into her campaign coffers… and the scandal could have major implications in the next presidential election.

Accord to the Washington Free Beacon, nearly $750,000 has been funneled through an endorsement and mailing list operation run by Waters and her daughter, Karen.

In basic terms, politicians who want to ride on the coattails of Maxine Waters’ name recognition pay her a large amount of money to be officially endorsed. The funds also buy a spot on the congresswoman’s mailer, which is sent to 200,000 constituents.

“The operation is run by Karen Waters, the daughter of Rep. Waters, who has collected more than $650,000 to date for running the endorsement mailers,” explained the Free Beacon.

“Karen is owed another $108,000 from her mother’s campaign committee, according to its most recent records. Once Karen is paid, her total payments will reach more than $750,000 since 2006,” continued the news source.

Paying such high amounts for endorsements may seem obscene, but one rising star in the Democrat party apparently doesn’t think so. California’s Sen. Kamala Harrishas reportedly paid Waters tens of thousands of dollars to be included on the printed list of endorsements.

“Harris — who has garnered media attention and earned speculation that she is positioning herself to run for president in 2020 following her performance during recent Senate hearings, including that of former FBI Director James Comey — has kicked $63,000 to the campaign of Maxine Waters, the congressional face of the anti-Trump movement, in exchange for placement on the endorsement mailers,” revealed the Free Beacon, citing Federal Election Commission records.

Through a decade-old legal loophole, the Waters campaign operation is able to bypass the contribution limits that restrict other people, the Free Beacon reported.

It’s ironic that the same Democrats who often rail against money in politics have been caught lining their pocketsthrough loopholes and schemes.

 

The Utter BS of Elon Musk

 

By E&E Research Center – Los Angeles

 

Elon Musk says that he wants all of the NASA and Department of Defense taxpayer cash in order to build A Utopian City of Joy on Mars.

He lies.

He is only using SpaceX to build and launch spy satellites to spy on citizens and deliver fake news and data harvesting to the world. He makes these BS pronouncements about impossible Martian cities in order to smoke-screen his crony cash grabs. He blinds you with his BS while he robs your paycheck. Part of your pay check deduction pays for Elon Musk’s sex workers and private jets.

He floods the internet with artist renderings and hippie “Master Plans” of a sex-infused Burning-Man-on-Mars hype.At the same time, what he is actually doing is launching the deadliest, most privacy-abusing, data-harvesting devices humankind has ever known, into space.

SpaceX is where the dirty political tricksters of In-Q-Tel work. SpaceX is where the muder-and-heroin-for-sale online site: Silk Road, was launched. SpaceX is the company that has had lots of rockets blow-up. SpaceX is who is getting sued by their engineer for lying about safety.SpaceX is a BAD THING!

Musk always presents his pitch as if he wanted you to help him make pixie dust and fuzzy socks for disabled Magic Fairies in the Golden Forest of Dreams!

Who wouldn’t want to help with that!?

His self-promoting ego-masturbation TED Talks are designed to present a Wizard of Oz load of crap that will bring the suckers running and dull the sensibilities of the casual observer. Musk is the fraud behind the curtain.

Imagine! By even listening to Elon Musk and his friends you can help save the Fairies!

Musk looks like a fresh-scrubbed frat house boy with an easy smile. Some want us to recall that many sociopaths looked just like Elon Musk. They use their looks to disarm you just before they cut your throat.

He uses a political tactic best described as the “Fluffy Pillow Filled With Sharp Nails” approach.

He couches political crony-ism cash grabs in a soft facade of warm, fuzzy, crunchy-granola, singing bird, sunshine-talk in order to lure the voters and stupider politicians into a dulled somnambulism.

Look!”, he says “… it’s just a fuzzy puppy. We all love fuzzy puppies. Move along, nothing to see here..”

The “fuzzy puppy” is actually a Halloween puppy costume draped over a three-headed cancer-ridden monster. The “fluffy pillow” is filled with broken glass and poisoned nails that will cut you to shreds. Musk uses FACADES to hide his dirty, criminally corrupt schemes.

Musk partners with people like David Plouffe. Plouffe delivers cash and power through the dirtiest anal crevasses of the political system.

Musk’s (now dead) SolarCity was a scam to exploit his poisonous exploding batteries and get free government cash. It had nothing to do with “saving the planet.” It was entirely about exploiting free government cash that he arranged with Obama in exchange for political campaigning. Tesla Motors is the same thing. All of the lawsuits against him from his ex-wives, ex-partners, ex-employees, ex -suppliers, ex-investors and the families of the dead victims of Tesla, clearly expose Musk as a fraud and an asshole!

Musk and his crony’s are who helped Obama turn the U.S. Department of Energy into a private slush-fund to pay back Obama’s campaign financiers. Musk and Plouffe came up with the scam: “...We can say it’s green and the voters will never ask questions as we suck the Treasury dry...”

The entire “Green”, “Cleantech” “Climate Tech” Solyndra and Cleantech Crash ruckus was scam dreamed up by these scumbags to funnel cash to Silicon Valley Billionaires. They need to be in federal prison and not on YouTube giving TED Talks.

Don’t be a sucker and a tool by buying into Musk’s BS.

 

 

Federal Law May Be Needed To Require Religious Diversity at GOOGLE

 

By Alah Bin Deen

 

What if you found out that almost everyone in charge of your grocery store was promoting cannibalism? Would you still shop there if you suspected the hamburger was not cow?

What if you found out that your gardener was involved in NAMBLA? Would you still let him tend flowers where your family lives?

What if you found out everybody in your Utah town was an inbreeding polygamist? Would you want your daughter to live there?

It is hard to imagine that people from a common religious affiliation would not rig the most powerful tool on Earth, given half a chance.

While much is made about whether or not Islam is a “peaceful religion”, it is true that Sunni Islam believers and Shiite Islam believers will sometimes kill each other on sight. They are both from the same religion but they will murder each other with any provocation.

80% of the Earth’s population, that were killed, were killed over religious differences. It is irrational to deny that devotees of each religion do not seek power and perpetrate idea manipulation.

Based on this fact, should any religious affiliation be allowed to be more than 15% of any media company, TV company or internet social media company?

Many claim that Jewish men control Hollywood, Silicon Valley web companies and the venture capital industry and that they operate a black-list. Is that accurate?

In a study of every major media company that affects the majority of the population in the USA and England a certain pattern can be found.

Having a monopoly on media distribution is a privilege and not a right. The right for a corporation to exist is provided by the individual taxpayers in a nation. The public are owed fair treatment by companies with the power to manipulate their thoughts and the apparent mood of things.

 

Media and Religious Diversity - Annual Reviews

on media and religious diversity: the media politics of diversity, religious diversity and the public sphere, and diversity of religious mediation.

annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145

 

Media and Religious Diversity | Annual Review of Anthropology

This review addresses recent work on media practices in situations of religious diversity. I hereby distinguish three approaches in this literature: the media ...

annualreviews.org/eprint/IS6ChWXZHV8ZCcdIaZqM/full/10.1146/...

Religious diversity - MPI-MMG

Department of religious diversity . Directed by Peter van der Veer, ... as well as cultural terms (media flows, fashion and consumption patterns, youth culture).

mmg.mpg.de/departments/religious-diversity/

Media and Religious Diversity on ResearchGate, the professional network for scientists.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234145541_Media_and_Religious...


 

Living with Religious Diversity, - Religion and Diversity

"Living with Religious Diversity" was a two day seminar co-sponsored and funded by the Social ... Contrary to much of the media reaction,

religionanddiversity.ca/media/uploads/workshop_report_living_with...

Media and religious diversity | Patrick Eisenlohr - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is a platform for academics to share research papers.

academia.edu/3419998/Media_and_religious_diversity

 

More: Elon Musk, Burning Man, SpaceX, Space X, Tesla Motors, David Plouffe, TSLA, Boeing, greenwashing, green cars, electric cars, Solyndra, SolarCity

 

nhji8jHT44Fooophn

Author: nhji8jHT44Fooophn

Stay in touch with the latest news and subscribe to the RSS Feed about this category

Comments (0)

Comments are closed


No attachment



You might also like